I don't think the old 35L will sell for more than it sells now used (max. 1100 USD).

Did you price the 24-70 MkI before the MkII vs. now? $900-1100 a few months ago, $1400 today. When the MkII came out, retailers immediately raised prices on remaining MkI stock to full MSRP (well above street price), and used prices followed suit. Same with the 70-200/2.8 IS, and it was about 2 years (i.e. beginning of this year) that used MkI prices returned to their pre-MkII levels. So I think it's quite probable the same will happen with the 35L...

+1

That has been the pattern for several years now.

I am wondering why Canon would be introducing expensive new lenses at that time. The worldwide econoomic situation, plus many people having to deal with bills from Christmas purchases doesn't sound right. Maybe it won't actually ship until 1915!

Need to wait and see if the 35mm beats the sigma.As for the 14-24, too late I already sprung for the Tokina 16-28.

If the canon 35L II actually materializes (let's not forget, this is a rumor), canon will address or top the competition. Given the brand loyalty, they can sell the lens at a premium just for updating the old lens...sad, but such is life.

Need to wait and see if the 35mm beats the sigma.As for the 14-24, too late I already sprung for the Tokina 16-28.

If the canon 35L II actually materializes (let's not forget, this is a rumor), canon will address or top the competition. Given the brand loyalty, they can sell the lens at a premium just for updating the old lens...sad, but such is life.

Yes. Quality will not be the issue. Success will be determined by how much folks are willing to pay for the weather sealing and the red ring...

Need to wait and see if the 35mm beats the sigma.As for the 14-24, too late I already sprung for the Tokina 16-28.

If the canon 35L II actually materializes (let's not forget, this is a rumor), canon will address or top the competition. Given the brand loyalty, they can sell the lens at a premium just for updating the old lens...sad, but such is life.

Yes. Quality will not be the issue. Success will be determined by how much folks are willing to pay for the weather sealing and the red ring...

Canon has some stiff competition as the Sigma 35mm 1.4 is an incredibly sharp lens for under $1,000. I just don't see the new Canon 35mm 1.4 ll outclassing the Sigma in sharpness by enough to justify a huge premium over the Sigma. I'm guessing the Canon 35mm 1.4 ll will retail for around $1599.

Not buying this rumor -- especially for the 35. A new flagship L with less technology than its non-L counterpart?

The new 35L certainly will have IS.

- A

Zero chance of an IS ... Shouldn't expect IS for any of their L primes until you reach the tele range. 24L II, 50L, 85L II should tell you the story.

Respectfully, I disagree. Canon is in the process of adding IS + USM + internal focusing + much improved build quality on every non-L prime (3 down, more certainly to come). Carnathan at TDP was surprised the 24/28 IS lenses didn't get red rings they were so well built. And as we know from early testing, the sharpness of these new non-Ls rivals the current Ls stopped down to a comparable aperture.

So these new L lenses must must must offer more than simply a red ring and a weathersealing gasket. A slight IQ bump is not enough.

[the writer gets on his soapbox]

I think some folks need to warm up to the notion that in low light, F/2 or F/2.8 (depending on the non-L prime we're talking about) with IS will dominate F/1.4 without it. I can't speak to what you all shoot, but when I am in ultra low light + handheld situations, I'm not shooting moving targets. So IS is buys me flexibility in the darkest conditions.

Ray 2021 posted that he leaves his 35L on F/1.4 for low light, cramped conditions. That's exactly why I bought my 28 IS. I would contend the non-L at F/2 with the 3-4 stops of IS would net those same shots at a sharper narrower aperture with a stop or two to spare to stop down further for sharpness OR choose a less noisy ISO. (Again --> flexibility)

[/soapbox]

Or perhaps another way to put it -- once the Canon users get a taste of the value of IS in low light, why on earth would they give that up? I think IS becomes the great entitlement of photographers in the next few years -- it becomes an absolute expectation of most users.

Or perhaps way #3 to put it -- if I am not getting IS with a new 35L, the IQ had better be off the charts better than the very very good non-L with IS.

I know I am in the minority in this opinion, but I'll keep sharing my take.

an f/1.4 wide-angle lens is NOT about speed. It is about the chance to get at least some halfway decent bokeh at wide-angle focal lengths. An f/1.4 lens therefore can never be substituted by a slower lens with IS.

The real issue however is not IS or not IS, it is the fact, that all of Canon's current 1.4 lenses deliver SUB-PAR IQ wide open. NB matter whether they have a red ring or not. 24 L II, 35 L I, 50 non L. And the 50/1.2 L is a sub-par piece of cr*p as well by todays standards. A Sigma 50/1.4 runs circles around it.

As far as 35mm fixed focals are concerned, currently the only 35/1.4 in the entire market which is fully usable at f/1.4 is the Sigma 35/1.4. At a street price wich is lower than the totally useless Canon 24 /2.8 IS and 28/2.8 IS and it beats the Zeiss Distagon 35.

And btw, I come from an entirely different usage situation:* when I shoot handheld in low light, I ALWAYS shoot moving targets ... that is ... PEOPLE in motion ... 1/60s needed, nothing less. IS useless. :-) * when I shoot static targets in low light, I ALWAYS use a tripod. IS useless. :-)